4 ms·

> Economic inequality cannot be explained by individual bad choices A more appropriate hypothesis would be that economic inequality cannot be explained by indi

> Economic inequality cannot be explained by individual bad choices A more appropriate hypothesis would be that economic inequality cannot be explained by individual bad choices *alone*. Plenty of examples of poor decision making can lead to catastrophic permanent poverty. Drug/alcohol abuse, having children without the right finances, skipping school etc. are just some of the decisions that can directly explain economic inequality.

lapcat 3y ago
> Drug/alcohol abuse Tons of rich and famous people are or were notorious drug/alcohol abusers. > skipping school College dropouts: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison...
- paulddraper 3y ago
  And almost without exception plainly harmful.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    Personally harmful? Yes. Financially harmful? Not so much.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >Financially harmful? Not so much. Having to spend $100k on drug rehab is objectively more financially harmful to someone than not having to. It's probably more accurate to say it's not financially ruinous.
      - convolvatron 3y ago
        its more about losing the ability to show up and make a living than the cost of rehab
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > Having to spend $100k on drug rehab is objectively more financially harmful to someone than not having to. What's $100K to someone like (randomly chosen) Eric Clapton? That's like 10 minutes of work for him. ;-)
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  Those are anecdotal exceptions. The average drug/alcohol abuser ends up badly, and the average college dropout earns much less than an average college graduate; the gap is over $1 million in lifetime earnings [1]. 1- https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuvalues/employment-earnings/ https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuv...
  - lapcat 3y ago
    But the point is that different people can make the same bad decisions and end up with vastly different economic outcomes. I personally made some absolutely terrible decisions when I was younger that could have put me in jail or in the grave, but I managed to avoid both of those outcomes. ;-)
- darth_avocado 3y ago
  The argument you’re presenting here is an argument by exception. Plenty of people survive accidents when not wearing seatbelts. That does not prove that not wearing seatbelts is okay.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    But the rich are the exceptions. The discussion is about economic inequality: "economic inequality on a social level cannot be explained by bad choices among the poor nor by good decisions among the rich." People try to argue that the rich got to be rich because they make good decisions. I'm pointing out that the ultra-rich — and yes, the ultra-rich are the exception, the most economically unequal — make the same so-called "bad" decisions as average people or poor people. There's a ridiculous double standard where we blame poor people for making bad decisions but give rich people a break for making the same damn decisions.
    - darth_avocado 3y ago
      When you say rich, you refer to billionaires or millionaires, which may be the exception. But I’m reality even if you compare the top 10% excluding billionaires with the rest, decision making is a very big part of what gets you there. That may not be the only predictor, which was my original comment, but arguing decision making does not affect income inequality is pretty ridiculous.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        Why is it ridiculous? An alternative explanation is opportunity plus randomness. You already admitted that there's a large element of randomness to life: "Plenty of people survive accidents when not wearing seatbelts." And by the way, is there any evidence that the seatbelt wearing rate varies across economic classes? People of economic means have a lot more opportunities than other people. And that's certainly no guarantee of success, but a certain % of opportunities will randomly work out, whether they involved "good" or "bad" decisions. This means it's much easier to succeed if you grow up with economic advantages, even if the level of talent is evenly distributed among all economic classes. Let me put it this way: the reason to go to Harvard or Stanford isn't the "education". Calculus for example is the same anywhere. The actual classes at a state university are comparable to the classes at an "elite" university. The reason people desperately want to go to the elite universities is to meet the elite. It's about social networking. You get more opportunities if you know the right people. That should be obvious.
hoxtrader 3y ago
[flagged]
EarthAmbassador 3y ago
Are you saying human reproduction is best suited to those who can afford it?
- vacuity 3y ago
  Raising children is costly. I don't think the parent commenter meant anything untoward, and certainly not if I view it charitably.
  - darth_avocado 3y ago
    I meant people are free to have kids and everyone should get to experience the joy/pain of having children. But having children is expensive. If you have 5 kids vs 1, there will be a difference in your economic status unless you’re already coming from wealth. Same holds true about whether you have a kid at 16 vs when you have in 30s. You can make any decision you want, but some are just objectively bad and have an impact on your economic status.

lapcat 3y ago

> Drug/alcohol abuse Tons of rich and famous people are or were notorious drug/alcohol abusers. > skipping school College dropouts: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison...

paulddraper 3y ago
And almost without exception plainly harmful.
- lapcat 3y ago
  Personally harmful? Yes. Financially harmful? Not so much.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >Financially harmful? Not so much. Having to spend $100k on drug rehab is objectively more financially harmful to someone than not having to. It's probably more accurate to say it's not financially ruinous.
    - convolvatron 3y ago
      its more about losing the ability to show up and make a living than the cost of rehab
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > Having to spend $100k on drug rehab is objectively more financially harmful to someone than not having to. What's $100K to someone like (randomly chosen) Eric Clapton? That's like 10 minutes of work for him. ;-)
boeingUH60 3y ago
Those are anecdotal exceptions. The average drug/alcohol abuser ends up badly, and the average college dropout earns much less than an average college graduate; the gap is over $1 million in lifetime earnings [1]. 1- https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuvalues/employment-earnings/ https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuv...
- lapcat 3y ago
  But the point is that different people can make the same bad decisions and end up with vastly different economic outcomes. I personally made some absolutely terrible decisions when I was younger that could have put me in jail or in the grave, but I managed to avoid both of those outcomes. ;-)
darth_avocado 3y ago
The argument you’re presenting here is an argument by exception. Plenty of people survive accidents when not wearing seatbelts. That does not prove that not wearing seatbelts is okay.
- lapcat 3y ago
  But the rich are the exceptions. The discussion is about economic inequality: "economic inequality on a social level cannot be explained by bad choices among the poor nor by good decisions among the rich." People try to argue that the rich got to be rich because they make good decisions. I'm pointing out that the ultra-rich — and yes, the ultra-rich are the exception, the most economically unequal — make the same so-called "bad" decisions as average people or poor people. There's a ridiculous double standard where we blame poor people for making bad decisions but give rich people a break for making the same damn decisions.
  - darth_avocado 3y ago
    When you say rich, you refer to billionaires or millionaires, which may be the exception. But I’m reality even if you compare the top 10% excluding billionaires with the rest, decision making is a very big part of what gets you there. That may not be the only predictor, which was my original comment, but arguing decision making does not affect income inequality is pretty ridiculous.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      Why is it ridiculous? An alternative explanation is opportunity plus randomness. You already admitted that there's a large element of randomness to life: "Plenty of people survive accidents when not wearing seatbelts." And by the way, is there any evidence that the seatbelt wearing rate varies across economic classes? People of economic means have a lot more opportunities than other people. And that's certainly no guarantee of success, but a certain % of opportunities will randomly work out, whether they involved "good" or "bad" decisions. This means it's much easier to succeed if you grow up with economic advantages, even if the level of talent is evenly distributed among all economic classes. Let me put it this way: the reason to go to Harvard or Stanford isn't the "education". Calculus for example is the same anywhere. The actual classes at a state university are comparable to the classes at an "elite" university. The reason people desperately want to go to the elite universities is to meet the elite. It's about social networking. You get more opportunities if you know the right people. That should be obvious.

hoxtrader 3y ago

[flagged]

EarthAmbassador 3y ago

Are you saying human reproduction is best suited to those who can afford it?

vacuity 3y ago
Raising children is costly. I don't think the parent commenter meant anything untoward, and certainly not if I view it charitably.
- darth_avocado 3y ago
  I meant people are free to have kids and everyone should get to experience the joy/pain of having children. But having children is expensive. If you have 5 kids vs 1, there will be a difference in your economic status unless you’re already coming from wealth. Same holds true about whether you have a kid at 16 vs when you have in 30s. You can make any decision you want, but some are just objectively bad and have an impact on your economic status.